Allegations against all defendants dismissed in full

January 6, 2025 — REEDVILLE, Va. — The following was released by Ocean Harvesters:

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Friday dismissed in full the qui tam “whistleblower” lawsuit United States of America ex rel. Chiles and Manthey v. Cooke Inc. et al. brought by relators W. Benson Chiles and Chris Manthey. From the outset of this case, Cooke Inc., Omega Protein, and Ocean Harvesters have maintained that the lawsuit, which alleged violations of the False Claims Act (FCA), misstated the facts and ignored the law. In granting the companies’ motions to dismiss, the court agreed that the relators’ theory was unfounded and failed as a matter of law.

At issue in the litigation is the companies’ compliance with vessel citizenship laws. For years, federal regulators have repeatedly found Ocean Harvesters to meet the relevant requirements to lawfully engage in commercial fishing activities. Through the lawsuit, the relators attempted to supplant this regulatory regime by substituting their judgment for the considered views of federal officials. In dismissing the lawsuit, the court concluded that the FCA does not permit the relators to do that, as they failed to meet the foundational requirement of even alleging that the companies deprived the U.S. government of money or property.

Separately, the court rejected the relators’ so-called reverse FCA theory, under which they asked the court to step into regulators’ shoes and assess penalties against the companies, notwithstanding the fact that those very same regulators never deemed it appropriate to pursue such remedies. Indeed, as the companies have maintained throughout, their compliance with vessel citizenship requirements meant that there would be no basis to assess any penalties.

Historical Context: Regulatory Compliance and MARAD’s Review
Ocean Harvesters has consistently demonstrated transparency with federal regulators. Beginning in 2020, the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) reviewed Ocean Harvesters documentation and, as reported by Undercurrent News, “found it to be satisfactory and in compliance with fishery endorsement requirements.”

Documentation submitted earlier in the lawsuit by the defendants demonstrated that relevant ownership details were fully disclosed to MARAD, including information regarding the ownership structure. This evidence contradicted the relators’ allegations of improper concealment.

Ocean Harvesters Responds
“We are pleased that the court has dismissed this baseless lawsuit,” said Ben Landry, spokesperson for Ocean Harvesters. “The decision underscores our commitment to full compliance with federal laws and regulations, and vindicates the integrity of our operations. From the outset, we have been transparent with regulators.”

This case was decided by United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman, who has been on the court since 2012.